14 June 2016

Stone cold morons

The indycampers are morons. There's no getting around it, no sugar-coating it: stone cold morons. In -- legitimately -- resisting the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body's attempt to expel their small camp from Holyrood's grounds, the group have argued their case in a fashion which has lapsed from the divinely ridiculous to the grotesquely insulting. They have consistently ignored substantial legal arguments they might use to win their case, spending hours instead on eccentric, invariably doomed political points and barrack room lawyering. They are their own worst enemies.

This morning, they returned to Lord Turnbull's court, explaining that - months into their case and months after his first option - they still haven't tracked down a lawyer to represent them. The spokesmen for the camp went still further. They accused the judge of blasphemy, demanded the Queen appear to give evidence, demanded a jury hear the case, suggested that a key "spiritual" argument should be addressed by the court, declaring that "Jesus Christ the second is here and we're going to get our independence."

I have the utmost sympathy for litigants -- ordinary folk -- trying to formulate legal cases without the assistance of a lawyer. This is hard, sometimes impossible, work. The logic of our courts puts them at a clear disadvantage when faced - as the indycampers have been faced - with professional opponents, whose bread and butter work is understanding legal procedures, rules and principles.

Having to do all this on the hoof - for yourself - without access to legal databases, without inbuilt legal know-how gained over the years, is tough. The inequality of arms can lead to injustice. Some judges are sympathetic to the plight of party litigants, others less so. Some try to take an active hand, focusing the ordinary punter's attention towards the key legal arguments and issues, rather than letting them dangle in the wind. They try to even up the odds, between the represented and the unrepresented party. They keep their patience, and try to see justice done as best they can.

Lord Turnbull is such a judge. We can only presume he lost the card-cut in the judicial dining room in Parliament House, to find himself landed with this case. And despite all manner of provocations, interminable, boring and irrelevant submissions -- this Court of Session judge has exhibited the patience of a saint. He had bent over backwards to accommodate the indycampers. He has treated their arguments as seriously as he could. He has tried to find any crumb of substantive legal argument in their digressive, and often just plain oddball submissions to the court. And by gum -- Lord Turnbull actually found one. The judge lit up this arguable point with neon lights in his first opinion in the "sovereign indigenous people of Scotland" case. He told them to focus on it. He sounded sympathetic.

And what have the indycampers done with this helping hand? On the evidence of today's hearing, they've completely ignored it, abandoning a potentially winnable legal point which could block Holyrood's eviction plan, preferring instead to indulge in more antics and insults. It is frustrating. It is baffling.

Here's the short version of how they might survive. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is a public authority. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, the actions of public authorities must conform with the rights protected under the European Convention. Article 10 protects free expression, Article 11 your right to freedom of assembly and association. Both of these are engaged by Holyrood's eviction plans, and both are qualified rights.

That means the state is entitled to interfere with your rights to speak your mind and freely to assemble -- but only if particular conditions are met. The restrictions on your rights must be (a) according to law and (b) in pursuit of a legitimate aim -- national security, public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals -- that kind of thing. Lastly, any interference must also be proportionate, striking a fair balance between collective interests pursued by the legitimate aim, and the fundamental rights of individuals to express their views, and to assemble. This is for the court to decide.

And in his first opinion, Lord Turnbull actually sounded reasonable skeptical about whether evicting this small camp would represent a proportionate measure by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Distinguishing the situation involving the indycampers from other nearly analogous occupations, the judge had this to say:

[67] I have heard no evidence on the extent to which the respondents in the present case do, or do not, constitute an interference with the rights of others to access the grounds of the Scottish Parliament, or on any other matter which might fall to be weighed in a proportionality assessment. As a resident of Edinburgh though, I am familiar with the layout of the grounds surrounding the Scottish Parliament building and the general location of the Camp. As indicated by the petitioner, the Camp presently appears to occupy a small area at the very edge of the grounds which it owns and at the furthest point away from the entrance to the Parliament building. It is not immediately obvious that the presence of the Camp would inhibit the use of the grounds by others for picnicking, dog-walking, or the like, as founded upon by the petitioner. Nor is it immediately obvious that there are any real security or logistical concerns of the sort drawn attention to by the petitioner and which might weigh the proportionality balance in its favour.

Abandoning their ridiculous antics, ceasing gratuitously to insult the trial judge, focusing on this legal argument -- might actually get them somewhere. But after this morning's session, that looks like a fool's hope.

Forgive my cynicism, born of spending far too long in less than salubrious environs. My working principle is to consider all possible motives; especially when, as Fergus points out below, there is no discernible strategy.

There is an air of improv about the mork&mindy campers, but no need to posit the Dark Hand of Westminster here; they see themselves as historical actors, fighting agin the Great Satan, and are blissfully unaware that for the rest of us it’s more lke Oor Wullie waving a catty at Pc Murdoch.

Is it all more than a giggle though? The Natonal is giving them their whole front page again, which indicates that they may be tapping into something in the dank Nor' Loch of the nationalist collective unconscious.

Having spent all morning (and some of the afternoon) at this hearing, I remain confused as to what exactly the indycampers actually want to achieve. They remained fixated upon the 'political' approach they ran at the earlier debate and seemed unable or unwilling to acknowledge that the case had moved on.

At times, they seemed to try deliberately to irritate Lord Turnbull: arguing with him, pointedly addressing him as 'sir', endlessly making fundamentally irrelevant points. On one or two occasions, they directly insulted him, and he became visibly angry at having been accused of insulting one of the respondents.

What is the purpose of this behaviour? If they want to win, then it only serves to weaken their cause. Indeed, it was principally because of their antics in court today that Lord Turnbull declined to allow them the opportunity to cross examine witnesses at the next hearing, opting instead for evidence to be restricted to affidavits. He said (in effect) that they could not be trusted.

This is a case which the indycampers could win if they wanted to. From what I saw today, they do not: they just want to drag things out for as long as possible.

An interesting question. You've got to wonder -- even if only unconsciously -- some of the campers may want to be evicted, hence the elaborate political self-sabotage and neglect of more promising lines of legal argument.

I think that the difficulty is that they want to win, but only on their own terms. They aren't interested in arguments about their freedom of speech or assembly: it must be a stunning political victory or a romantic Waverley-esqe defeat.

The real problem is that they want this to be a great, momentous event, still talked about a generation hence. I doubt they will be satisfied with anything else.

I suggest you take a look at the video taken by Sean Clerkin in the halls of the court during the break between sessions. The argument they make is that John Hill (jahtruth.net) is the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Their arguments come from a mix of science fiction (Dune & Star Wars) with smatterings of Christianity.

It's all very strange, including beliefs that Dune is factually correct, and that the force compelled George Lucas to write Star Wars.

Haha It really takes something special to leave Edwin and Peaty speechless. :-) I reckon its simpler to understand, these people are a mix of low IQ and other more deranged conspiracy theorists who are just using them to make themselves feel important. There is also plenty of evidence to see that some of their number "have issues" and are already well know to the Police.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF2c8bdRlcM

“I think of him more of a long nosed, elegantly coiffed Afghan pawing through his leather bound library whilst disdainfully inhaling a puddle of Armagnac in an immense crystal snifter. If he can also lift his leg over his shoulder and lick his balls...” ~ Conan the Librarian™

“... the erudite and loquacious Peat Worrier who never knowingly avoids a prolix circumlocution.” ~Love and Garbage

“My initial mind picture was of a scanty bikini'd individual wallowing in a bath tub of peat. However I've since learned to warm to him, and like peat he's slow to draw but quick to heat...” ~Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers

Definition: "to worry peat" v.

"Peat worrying" is the little known or understood process for the extraction of cultural peat, practised primarily in the Lowlands of Scotland by aspirant urban rustics. Primary implements by means of which successful "worrying" is achieved include the traditional oxter-flaughter but also the sharp-edged kailyard and the innovative skirlie stramasher.